whistleblower on Church finances

[bluebell]

1 hour ago, Amulek said:

I see what you mean. I guess I still kind of think of that more as being a type of stereotyping though, rather than an actual cultural thing per se.

We are simply extrapolating our beliefs about a certain individual based on his membership in a relatively known population: the set of all LDS bishops. With the church operating substantively the same across geographic boundaries, it's reasonable to believe that, on average, bishops in Oregon are likely to be just as faithful and trustworthy as bishops in Vermont. So, when you hear a story about a bishop in another state having allegedly done something pretty bad, you're likely to give him the benefit of the doubt based on what you know about bishops in general. 

 

I agree.  Which means that bishops have a great support system in place (even in those rare times that they don't deserve it), while members who come up against Bishops that they struggle with don't find a lot of support, even when they also need to be supported. 

Edited January 10, 2020 by bluebell

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Let's say we become aware of a story in which a person we don't know and have never met ("Person X") goes online and makes unsubstantiated accusations of serious misconduct against another person we don't know and have never met ("Person Y").

What should we do with this?  My approach is this: Without more than Person X's say-so, I will not uncritically accept accusations of serious misconduct against Person Y.  

Not because Person X is necessarily lying, but because Person Y deserves the benefit of the doubt.  The presumption of innocence.  

This approach is derived from the Golden Rule.  If I were Person Y, I would be disturbed that PersonX's unsubstantiated accusations against me have been accepted at face value, with no evidence, and with no effort or opportunity to get my side of the story.

That said, I don't think giving Person Y the benefit of the doubt (a presumption of innocence) is "siding" with Person Y.  It's just a refusal to uncritically accept an unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y.  

Thanks,

-Smac

I can see, with your legal background, why you go to the 'innocent until proven guilty' model.  That model is imperative in court of course and can be just as valid outside of it.  But in situations where there is no need to pass judgment, I think it makes more sense to stay neutral, and assume neither innocence nor guilt for either party.   

And I can also understand why you view that giving Person Y the benefit of the doubt isn't siding with them.  But from my perspective, a refusal to uncritically accept an unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y by presuming his innocence becomes a de facto acceptance that Person X isn't telling the truth.   So while refusing to uncritically accept an unsubstantiated accusation against one party, you chosen to accept an unsubstantiated negative view against the other.  I don't believe that that is necessary.

 

[smac97]

17 minutes ago, bluebell said:

I can see, with your legal background, why you go to the 'innocent until proven guilty' model.  That model is imperative in court of course and can be just as valid outside of it. 

Well, no.  Not really.  Joseph Bishop has not been "proven guilty" of misconduct against McKenna Denson, but my assessment of the evidence is that yes, he probably did abuse her, but that abuse was not rape or attempted rape.

Nothing has been "proven" in court, but I have seen sufficient evidence to reach a conclusion for myself.

Quote

But in situations where there is no need to pass judgment, I think it makes more sense to stay neutral, and assume neither innocence nor guilt for either party.   

I don't understand.  "Stay{ing} neutral" is what I am proposing as a general rule.  Refusing to uncritically accept Person X's unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y is "staying neutral," is it not?

Quote

And I can also understand why you view that giving Person Y the benefit of the doubt isn't siding with them.  But from my perspective, a refusal to uncritically accept an unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y by presuming his innocence becomes a de facto acceptance that Person X isn't telling the truth.

I guess we'll have to disagree there.  Anything other than "a refusal to uncritically accept an unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y" amounts to taking a non-neutral position.

Person X may be lying.  Or embellishing.  Or mentally ill.  Or telling the truth.  We just don't know.  So I disagree that my position "becomes a de facto acceptance that Person X isn't telling the truth."

In the present case, though, we have some hinky stuff going on with Lesley Butterfield (see here), such that I'm becoming less inclined to give credence to her claims, and more inclined to attribute them to embellishment or falsehood. 

The playing field is pretty much never level when it comes to public accusations against a bishop.  We all know a person like Lesley Butterfield is at liberty to say anything she wants (which, therefore, could include distortions, embellishments, even outright lies), since she knows beforehand that there is essentially no chance of the bishop defending himself against the accusations. 

Metaphorically speaking, the bishop is in the middle of a boxing ring, tied sitting in a chair, with his mouth gagged and his hands tied behind his back.  Lesley Butterfield then enters the ring and pummels him.  Has she "won"?  Is what she is doing fair or appropriate?

Quote

So while refusing to uncritically accept an unsubstantiated accusation against one party, you chosen to accept an unsubstantiated negative view against the other.  I don't believe that that is necessary.

All things being equal, you might have a valid point.  But I don't think all things are equal (again, see here).  I think there are some pretty good reasons to be skeptical of Ms. Butterfield's narrative (at least the parts that vilify the bishop, the stake president, her friends, and her family).

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 10, 2020 by smac97

[bluebell]

33 minutes ago, smac97 said:

I don't understand.  "Stay{ing} neutral" is what I am proposing as a general rule.  Refusing to uncritically accept Person X's unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y is "staying neutral," is it not?

You said that you prefer to assume innocence on the part of Person Y, which is, by definition, not staying neutral.  

[Meadowchik]

13 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

Everything we take in is unavoidably filtered through our own personal experiences. These are some of mine.

Thanks very much, Hamba, for sharing your experiences. I'm not sure why you would say I cannot understand revelation the way you do, as you've described it here. It is unfortunate that you cannot imagine that.

[smac97]

On 1/10/2020 at 9:58 AM, bluebell said:

You said that you prefer to assume innocence on the part of Person Y, which is, by definition, not staying neutral.  

Assuming Person Y's guilt is "not staying neutral."

And I disagree that my position is "not staying neutral."  Prior to the unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y, I had no basis for thinking less of Person Y.  Subsequent to the unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y, I still had no basis for thinking less of him.  Why?  Because my position amounts to "a refusal to uncritically accept an unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y."

Now, what of Person X?  Again, nothing has changed, or at least not much.  Prior to the unsubstantiated accusation against Person Y, I had no basis for thinking less of Person X.  She may be lying.  Or embellishing.  Or mentally ill.  Or telling the truth.  We just don't know.

Refusing to uncritically accept the uncorroborated say-so of a stranger is not a condemnation of that person.  So we can either believe Person X's claims, or disbelieve those claims, or take no position on those claims by giving Person Y the benefit of the doubt.  The presumption of innocence.  That's about as "neutral" as one can hope to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited January 12, 2020 by smac97

[Metis_LDS]

15 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Assuming Person Y's guilt is "not staying neutral."

So we can either believe Person X's claims, or disbelieve those claims, or take no position on those claims by giving Person Y the benefit of the doubt.  The presumption of innocence.  That's about as "neutral" as one can hope to be.

Thanks,

-Smac

I know your most likely speaking as a lawyer and that is okay. For myself anything happening in a room with only two people I tend to not believe either version.  Now I know that is a luxury of not having a role in the having to sort things out.

Edited January 10, 2020 by Metis_LDS

[smac97]

7 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I know your most likely speaking as a lawyer and that is okay. For myself anything happening in a room with only two people I tend to not believe either version. 

But here we don't have "either version."  We have just the one from Lesley Butterfield.  And it's the only one we are going to get.

7 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Now I know that is a luxury of not having a role in the having to sort things out.

What do you do, though, when you only have one side of the story?

Thanks,

-Smac

[topcougar]

On 12/18/2019 at 6:38 PM, Tacenda said:

I wonder how many members will want to clean the toilets at church now. 

I am doing it this week - and glad to do it.

[Metis_LDS]

6 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But here we don't have "either version."  We have just the one from Lesley Butterfield.  And it's the only one we are going to get.

This is the basic problem of human justice,  having to make a judgement without really knowing what went on.  In quoting your post I thought you were discussing methods of dealing with the unknown.   Lesley Butterfield  complaint I believe is about what was said.  So what did anyone say or not say?  We do not know because there were only two persons in the room.

[Metis_LDS]

35 minutes ago, smac97 said:

But here we don't have "either version."  We have just the one from Lesley Butterfield.  And it's the only one we are going to get.

I thought a lot about it but because this board is based in the USA please do not take my comment to be about the USA but it is about human justice in general.  I feel strongly that all courts should not be ask to make judgements about what two people say in private.  This only applies to words of course.  There is a lot of movies where people wear a listening device to get evidence.  This is not a legal question I pose but rather a logical one.  Why require evidence of what was said in one instance and then try to judge another without evidence?  

Edited January 10, 2020 by Metis_LDS

[Hamba Tuhan]

7 hours ago, Meadowchik said:

I'm not sure why you would say I cannot understand revelation the way you do, as you've described it here.

I think it's the inevitable outcome of your descriptions and what you've said. You don't believe in God. You believe that 'revelation' involves women and men experiencing different impressions bound by their sex. You believe that harmony is created as different people with different viewpoints discuss matters together and work out a 'synthesis'. And so on.

I have experienced all of that, and it can be a very good thing. It can also be a very important precursor to actual revelation.

But it has been my personal experience that God is real and that He speaks to His children. He does so through spiritual impressions, in dreams and visions, by speaking in His own voice, by sending angels, and so forth. When this occurs, everyone involved receives the exact same message, though each in her/his own way. Harmony is created by the communication itself and the willingness to accept and act on it.

In the end, these are simply not the same things.

Edited January 11, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan

[Meadowchik]

6 hours ago, Hamba Tuhan said:

I think it's the inevitable outcome of your descriptions and what you've said. You don't believe in God. You believe that 'revelation' involves women and men experiencing different impressions bound by their sex. You believe that harmony is created as different people with different viewpoints discuss matters together and work out a 'synthesis'. And so on.

I have experienced all of that, and it can be a very good thing. It can also be a very important precursor to actual revelation.

But it has been my personal experience that God is real and that He speaks to His children. He does so through spiritual impressions, in dreams and visions, by speaking in His own voice, by sending angels, and so forth. When this occurs, everyone involved receives the exact same message, though each in her/his own way. Harmony is created by the communication itself and the willingness to accept and act on it.

In the end, these are simply not the same things.

We believe different things. But that does not mean I cannot remember what I used to believe about revelation, which is consistent with your description of it. So I understand it just fine.

What you said to me just seemed like a dismissal of my views because I don't believe as you do.

You ended your last post by saying, 

 "Everything we take in is unavoidably filtered through our own personal experiences. These are some of mine." 

And that's pretty much my point about male and female experiences. So revelation is impacted.

Either way, the quality of revelation shan't be the reason for excluding women. My argument would say it can be improved by more inclusion. Your argument means revelation would be just as good whomever it comes through. 

 

[Calm]

2 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

But that does not mean I cannot remember what I used to believe about revelation, which is consistent with your description of it. So I understand it just fine.

Our memories are not about how we were back then, but how we are in this moment.

[Meadowchik]

7 minutes ago, Calm said:

Our memories are not about how we were back then, but how we are in this moment.

Yes, sure, at least to some extent. That would apply to all of us. 

[The Nehor]

On 1/10/2020 at 11:36 AM, smac97 said:

But here we don't have "either version."  We have just the one from Lesley Butterfield.  And it's the only one we are going to get.

What do you do, though, when you only have one side of the story?

Thanks,

-Smac

Generally I try to figure out who I trust more. If I do not know either one I try to ignore it. I am nosey about a lot of things but relationships and Bishop interviews are not on that list.

Bishops screw up all the time. I had a bishop give me what I thought was horrible advice once. I still love that guy and in other situations he gave me fantastic advice and comforted me a lot when my second engagement blew up and flaming shrapnel was flying everywhere.

[smac97]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Quote

But here we don't have "either version."  We have just the one from Lesley Butterfield.  And it's the only one we are going to get.

What do you do, though, when you only have one side of the story?

Generally I try to figure out who I trust more.

Okay.  But we seldom know both parties, let alone know them well.

And in terms of evaluating online accusations against a bishop, we pretty much always know neither party.

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

If I do not know either one I try to ignore it. I am nosey about a lot of things but relationships and Bishop interviews are not on that list.

That's a fair response.

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Bishops screw up all the time. I had a bishop give me what I thought was horrible advice once. I still love that guy and in other situations he gave me fantastic advice and comforted me a lot when my second engagement blew up and flaming shrapnel was flying everywhere.

I think bishops are, on the whole, an overwhelmingly positive and net contributor to goodness and service in the Church and in society.  But yes, they can mess up.

Thanks,

-Smac

[Scott Lloyd]

On 1/10/2020 at 9:58 AM, bluebell said:

You said that you prefer to assume innocence on the part of Person Y, which is, by definition, not staying neutral.  

Neither is “uncritically accepting Person X’s unsubstantiated accusation”. 

[Meadowchik]

28 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Neither is “uncritically accepting Person X’s unsubstantiated accusation”. 

And so, avoiding both extremes results in a position of uncertainty, which can be difficult and uncomfortable. However, difficulty and discomfort are part of the processes of repentance and improvement.

[Scott Lloyd]

28 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

And so, avoiding both extremes results in a position of uncertainty, which can be difficult and uncomfortable. However, difficulty and discomfort are part of the processes of repentance and improvement.

I don’t see what connection there is between placing guilt or blame on someone without substantive evidence and repenting or improving. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

The presumption of innocence is a corollary to the concept of burden of proof being on the one making the claim. 
 

Whether it be in the courtroom, on the debate stage or in any facet of human interaction, if a claim or a charge has no substantiation, it is logically untenable and is undermined by its own vacuity. Once persuasive evidence is forthcoming, the burden then shifts to the other party in the dispute, which, in the case of an accusation, would be the one accused. 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[Meadowchik]

22 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I don’t see what connection there is between placing guilt or blame on someone without substantive evidence and repenting or improving. 

The uncertainty is not inl placing blame or guilt, it is in considering the possibility of innocence and guilt.

[Scott Lloyd]

11 minutes ago, Meadowchik said:

The uncertainty is not inl placing blame or guilt, it is in considering the possibility of innocence and guilt.

Under the concept of burden of proof I just described, there can be no tenable consideration of guilt unless there has been substantiation or evidence.

Edited January 12, 2020 by Scott Lloyd

[bluebell]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

Neither is “uncritically accepting Person X’s unsubstantiated accusation”. 

Exactly. I never stated differently. 

[Hamba Tuhan]

On 1/11/2020 at 4:40 PM, Meadowchik said:

We believe different things. But that does not mean I cannot remember what I used to believe about revelation, which is consistent with your description of it. So I understand it just fine.

I'm in no position to assess or even comment on what you 'used to believe about revelation'. But please note that my post didn't even mention beliefs; instead, I shared some examples of my personal experiences with revelation. (And I have hundreds more I could have shared.) Unless your past experiences with revelation have been very similar to mine, then you can't possibly understand revelation as I understand it. There is a fundamental difference between believing something without having experienced it and believing something because one has experienced it.

And that's where the whole 'I used to be just like you' mantra from the disaffected leaves me perplexed. If you genuinely experienced what I mean when I discuss revelation, and then you walked away from it, you are either crazy or evil. I really don't think most people who leave the Church are either of those things, so the only conclusion I can reach is that our experiences have not been the same.

And I'm OK with that. It certainly explains why 'we believe different things'.

Edited January 13, 2020 by Hamba Tuhan